TORONTO — The Law Society of Ontario ditched a controversial rule requiring all lawyers to adopt and abide by a statement advocating equality and diversity, Wednesday, in a divided vote.

The society’s board of directors immediately then started arguing again over a new compromise motion, which passed despite continued bitter debate.

If compromise, which one board member noted was a typical Canadian reaction, solves problems without soothing acrimony, then the society that self-regulates all lawyers and paralegals in the province remains a divided and choleric body.

The compromise was not warmly embraced, even by supporters, with one offering as praise that it was “better than nothing.”

The new regulation requires lawyers and paralegals to acknowledge, each year on their report to the society, an awareness of their existing professional obligation to abide by human rights legislation.

The idea of the Statement of Principles has divided society members for three years.

Emerging from reforms to address systemic racism and discrimination in the legal profession, the society’s board of directors, who are known as benchers, passed the Statement of Principles resolution in 2016.

Opposition was fierce, with opponents not specifically arguing against the idea of inclusion but, generally, to the issue that forcing members to adopt a mandatory statement in order to engage in their profession was unacceptable compelled speech, or that the society was dabbling in affairs beyond its mandate. Some said it was unconstitutional; others an empty gesture.

In an attempt to soften the split, a motion to allow lawyers and paralegals to abstain from making the statement on grounds of conscience or faith failed in 2017 after a similarly divisive debate.

The issue became a rare hot-button topic in the election of new benchers, with a large slate of candidates openly opposed to the Statement of Principles (SOP), calling themselves Stop-SOPers, running — and winning — election as benchers this May.

My lived experience has been that you cannot force people to decide to do what is right

On Wednesday, the benchers gathered for their third board meeting since that election, at what is called convocation, to vote on two anti-SOP motions.

One was to replace a mandatory statement with a personal, voluntary statement and the second, described as a “hard repeal,” was to scrap it altogether.

By agreement, the motions were put to back-to-back roll-call votes without debate.

The motion to replace the SOP with a voluntary statement failed, 23 in favour and 27 against. The vote to repeal it passed, 28 in favour, 20 against and two abstentions.

As the dust settled it was immediately kicked up again.

Sidney Troister rose and offered a new motion.

“A hard repeal that ignores a significant demographic in our professions, who will be angry, hurt and have a greater sense of exclusion than it already does, does not sit well with me,” Troister said. “Despite my difficulty with the mandatory Statement of Principles, this result sends a message that this issue is not important to us.”

Atrisha Lewis, left, called the Law Society of Ontario’s vote to repeal its Statement of Principles “a devastating blow to all racialized licensees and the public at large.”Law Society of Ontario

He said a new rule, that members annually acknowledge their existing obligations on the matter, was a “middle ground” that “will show that we benchers are willing to find an acceptable compromise in order to find a solution that, right now, has polarized convocation and our professions.”

“We need to reach out as best we can and find some reconciliation.”

While his motion won the day, there was little sign of reconciliation.

Atrisha Lewis, said the vote to repeal the SOP “was a devastating blow to all racialized licensees and the public at large.” She said the new motion was “not enough but it is better than nothing.

“It is really important that we stop metaphorically punching racialized licensees in the face, because that’s what it feels like with the repeal motion.”

Orlando Da Silva said not supporting the new motion would damage the legal profession.

“There is nothing dangerous in this motion. There is nothing dangerous in acknowledging our obligations. It is, in fact, dangerous to deliberately refuse to do so when given this opportunity,” Da Silva said. “We will have collectively diminished the credibility of this convocation, diminished the honour of the law society and diminished the nobility of the legal professions.”

Orlando Da Silva at the Law Society of Ontario’s debate over its Statement of Principles.Law Society of Ontario

Brian Prill, opposing both the SOP and the new motion, said the requirement was “a useless venture” and “virtue signaling.”

“My lived experience has been that you cannot force people to decide to do what is right,” or to enforce a “politically correct way of behaving.”

Others complained their opposition was characterized as racism.

“There has been a lot of talk about how this is just a smokescreen and really it’s about preserving systemic racism purposely,” said Ryan Alford, who opposed the SOP and the compromise motion on the grounds of upholding constitutional governance and proper procedure.

Sam Goldstein, who was also opposed to both, said he felt “ambushed by this political correctness,” and urged members not to make decisions based on what people tweeted about them.

“I take great umbrage to people who accuse me of somehow being a racist because I just don’t agree with their political position,” Goldstein said.

Meanwhile, Julian Falconer, who supported the SOP and the compromise, predicted this was the beginning of the society’s divisiveness, not the end.

“This will not end here,” Falconer said. “The folks that call themselves the Stop-SOPers will be opposed to the rest of the inequity initiatives in the racialized report. It does not take a crystal ball or a genius to appreciate this is only the beginning of the dismantling of equity for the law society.”